<html>
<body>
At 02:45 04/03/2014, nathalie coupet wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Could you, jefsey, Hebe, and
others, please address the issue of leakage. How could you prevent it (do
you want to prevent it)?</blockquote><br>
As David Conrad mentions it, the leakage is a pollution of DNS buffers by
a different vision of the name space. This would occur in the top zone if
there were two different identical TLDs, the zones of which would be
different, documented by two different root server systems of thee same
class. <br><br>
Please note that:<br>
* The ICANN root is authoritative: the NTIA decides which servers are to
be listed for the different TLDs.<br>
* The ORSN root is non-authoritative: it reports the configuration
authoritatively indicated by the TLD Managers. <br><br>
This is the difference between monarchy and polycracy (where the common
decisions emerge from the diversity of individual authoritative decisions
which are taken by subsidiarity - i.e. by the zone managers, in an MS
approach). In a non-attacked class, leaks can only happen if an
authoritative root administrator decides the seizure of TLD. VGNICs
reduce the risks from this happening.<br><br>
I understand that others advocate a commercial oligarchy where the root
would be voted by the registrars (i.e. people paying ICANN). <br><br>
The DNS IETF model supports 65,365 roots, one for each class. The sole
class that people discuss on this list is the "IN" ICANN/NTIA
class. We call this attitude "the BUG", i.e. being unipolarly
global.<br><br>
Hebe.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> <br>
Nathalie <br><br>
<br>
<font size=2><b>From:</b> James Seng <james.seng@gmail.com><br>
<b>To:</b> David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> <br>
<b>Cc:</b> "discuss@1net.org List" <discuss@1net.org>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 3, 2014 4:13 PM<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA<br>
</font><br>
If we can separate the debate on control over namespace vs the actual
operation of the root server (or its anycast consetallation), we can
divide the political problem of the root servers by half :-)<br><br>
<br>
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:28 AM, David Conrad
<<a href="mailto:drc@virtualized.org">drc@virtualized.org</a>>
wrote:
<dl>
<dd>On Mar 3, 2014, at 7:10 PM, Seun Ojedeji
<<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>
> wrote:
<dd>> I was just trying sight past comments/thread about having
multiple alternate root servers (to perhaps break the
"perceived" ICANN monopoly (which i agree does not make sense
either :) )<br>
<dd>I understand, however just for clarity (and somewhat orthogonal to
this thread), there is nothing wrong with having multiple root servers or
server systems. What matters is the namespace, that is the universe
of all possible names. How that namespace is implemented, whether it is
on the "traditional" name servers or ORSN or via ISP's
resolvers mirroring the root zone or my copying the root zone and
installing it on my laptop, is irrelevant (particularly given
DNSSEC). Where things break down is when people want _different_
namespaces at the same time they expect those namespaces to interoperate
and not leak.<br>
<dd>Regards,
<dd>-drc<br>
<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________
<dd>discuss mailing list
<dd><a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a>
<dd>
<a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" eudora="autourl">
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br><br>
</dl><br><br>
<br>
-- <br>
-James Seng<br><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
<a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" eudora="autourl">
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
</blockquote></body>
</html>